Talk:RiffTrax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blue Crush was admitted by a moderator to be a 'red herring'. It has not been officially announced, and in fact has been denied as appearing any time soon. http://rifftrax.com/smf/index.php?topic=50.msg582#msg582

Contents 1 Can we not rush? 2 Order of the films 3 Sources 4 Sources again 5 DisembAudio 6 Sharecrow

[edit] Can we not rush?

A few times, titles have appeared in the Featured section that were incorrect and were eventually removed. Can we start a sort of policy of waiting to list titles in the list until they are finished and available for download? This would ensure complete accuracy of this article. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's fine as long as we can provide links to news about new RiffTrax that aren't on the RiffTrax home page. Nicely done, Ibaranoff24. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the films

Should we alphabetize the films in the list? It's not immediately apparent that they're sorted by RiffTrax release date. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Web content has to be the subject of multiple, reliable independent sources. Most of the independent sources focus on Nelson, and one doesn't even mention Rifftrax at all.--Drat (Talk) 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles linked on the page about Mike Nelson's Rifftrax focus on Mike Nelson, fancy that. What is that even supposed to mean? Perhaps reading the article and context of the CNN article would explain why it is there. Are you familiar with Mystery Science Theater 3000 at all? BathTub 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The CNN article provides a source for Nelson having stated that he thinks it's the cheesiest movie ever. This is important because it's the first commentary provided by RiffTrax. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that being my point, context is quite clear from reading the article. Not arguing the article couldn't do with a clean up, paragraphs are in the wrong order for instance. I just suspect Drat doesn't get the topic, or maybe that is his point and the article needs to be clearer in general. BathTub 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Rifftrax itself (the website and/or the Rifftrax commentaries) have to be the primary subject of the sources, not mentioned in passing, or even a portion.--Drat (Talk) 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment is relevant to the topic of the article. If he didn't think the movie were cheesy, it probably wouldn't have been his first pick for a commentary. And the CNN source is necessary—we can't just say that Roadhouse is cheesy. We have to attribute a source for that or people will think the article is trying to be POV. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I misread what you wrote and didn't address your main point. But the CNN article predates RiffTrax, so it would have been impossible at that time to write about it. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources again

To re-emphasise: Rifftrax (the website and/or the Riffrax themselves), MUST be shown to be the subject of multiple non-trivial works written by independent, reliable sources. The independent sources listed only make short mention of Rifftrax, and are interviews anyway. If there are not sufficient sources within a month, I will submit this article for deletion.--Drat (Talk) 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I did my share and added a very appropriate reference. You know, you should be glad that there are any references at all. RiffTrax isn't even a year old yet and probably hasn't reached the popularity that its predecessor MST3K reached. I'm sure that in time, better sources for information will be available. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We aren't in the business of predicting the future. Whether or not there may be sufficient references in the future is irrelevant, as that is impossible to predict or verify.--Drat (Talk) 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See Brandon you aren't allowed to just write about just anything on Wikipedia, a subjects heritage, your desire to share what you know with others, it's inherent coolness, all meaningless.

You are only allowed to write about something If someone else has already written about it, but not just any someones, nope, only notable someones, then the admins are allowed to completely ignore those someones and delete it anyway. The only reason articles still exist on wikipedia, is that they just haven't got around to deleting them yet, understand? BathTub 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you being sarcastic? --Brandon Dilbeck 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish. BathTub 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's always Deletion Review. People tend to notice anyway when admins go against the reasonable community consensus and policies in deleting or keeping an article. Sounds to me though that you're just pissed because an article about a subject you are involved with is under threat.--Drat (Talk) 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why there has to be a problem about this. I've added plenty of sources, including one that seems to meet the demands of WP:RS you brought up. Finding and citing sources is really not my forte (copyediting is). It would be a great help if you could find a good source for material in the article. In any case, I don't see how deleting this article would be of any help, because then there would be even fewer references. And as for WP:COI, I am in no way affiliated with Legend Films or Michael J. Nelson or anything like that. I'm just trying to edit an article here. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Nelson wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, well I would hope he could tell the difference, but I wouldn't bet my collection of scented bath soaps on it. I am also not employed by Legend films (I wish!). Like presumably everyone else here but Drat, I am a MST3K/Rifftrax fan. In the interests of full disclosure, I am active on the official forums, was recently made a Mod there, and due to the fact that I am in New Zealand, helped the Rifftrax guys correct a timing error on their PAL releases, and verify them when I can. I tied first place in my 8th Grade Spelling Bee. Broke a tooth falling off my bike in college (High School to you Americans). I think Jeff McBride and Paul Harris are both pretty awesome. I hate brussel sprouts. BathTub 16:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandon, I think twinkydrat has acknowledged everything is now OK...I no longer see a request for deletion for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriscott (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I said I'd add a request after a month. That was a week and a half ago. As for the COI thing, I was more replying to Bathtub. And twinkydrat?!?--Drat (Talk) 08:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right; the disparaging name was wrong and I apologize.Kriscott 09:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute...who said you are deleting this page on this forum....? Trapped you!!!

You have been reading message boards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriscott (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I interpreted this: "I no longer see a request for deletion for this article", as you thinking there was a deletion request on the article, that was subsequently removed. I haven't even really looked much at the article history.--Drat (Talk) 09:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the trouble here is that you're concerned that the references are not appropriate for an article about a website. But the article really isn't about the website that sells the RiffTrax. The article almost entirely describes the RiffTrax themselves--the products (the commentaries) that are sold on the site--and it hardly has anything to do with the website itself. The first sentence states that it's a website, but the website's there only to sell the products; I've rewritten the lead paragraph. Does this slight change take the edge off? The article is about a product and not a website. --Brandon Dilbeck 08:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I meant the product needs to be the source of numerous articles. As the article is really about the product, there isn't any need for the website image, which doesn't really need updating with each release anyway.--Drat (Talk) 09:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Wall Street Journal. Is that good enough? --Brandon Dilbeck 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DisembAudio

It seems as if this section of the article, which has been included for a while: "DisembAudio has also occasionally been known to join in on the riffing. The most notable of his contributions was in the commentary for The Fifth Element in which he ranted for a minute, going off topic from the movie. Several fans were slightly upset by this distracting diversion,[9] and since then, DisembAudio has had fewer lines in the commentaries."

Should probably reduced to something like "DisembAudio has also occasionally been known to join in on the riffing." First of all, it is opinionated, (words like rant and distracting are not npov), the fact that 'several' fans found it distracting should be irrelevant, as it is just as likely that several more did not. Secondly, the part about a reduced role in commentaries is not true, as several of the recent commentaries such as Over the Top and T3 have had several contributions from disembaudio. I will edit the section if people don't have better suggestions.--Mcgonigle 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This part of the article has bothered me for some time and I agree with your evaluation. Please go ahead and make the changes. Wowbobwow12 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

However Rant was a fair description of the event. BathTub 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Anything else that's been bothering you for a while? I think this article should definitely be cleaned up, but I don't know if I'm the one to do it. I prefer editing here and there, not rewriting from the ground up. --Mcgonigle 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I keep meaning to change the body of text, 2 main things, History seems wrong, the body of the article is two subjects, History how it came into being, and How it works. Plus I think Guest Riffers should become a section as it's only going to get longer.BathTub 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharecrow

Well, I may as well keep doing some editing. Regarding the mention of Sharecrow, I don't think that it needs to be mentioned, since it has nothing to do with RiffTrax in an official capacity, and certainly doesn't in the manner it is currently mentioned now: "Though RiffTrax was originally intended to be played on an MP3 player such as an iPod or laptop computer, a website called Sharecrow provides software designed to assist in synchronizing a commentary with a DVD."

The way this sentence is phrased makes no sense, if anything it should mention alternative methods such as reauthoring discs.Mcgonigle 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to clean this article up. Removed the sentence about how the decision was made to use MP3s after MP3s became popular, RiffTrax started in 2006, this is well after MP3s became popular, and this distinction is redundant and unnecessary. Mcgonigle 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)